Truth Magazine

By Morris W. R. Bailey

As the problems of church cooperation that confront a troubled brotherhood are being discussed today, it is regrettable that we often see and hear those who favor certain enterprises resort to name calling and the hurling of imputations which, in effect, amount to a misrepresentation of the views and beliefs of brethren who oppose the above movements. How often we have known some brother to be charged with not believing in preaching the gospel to the lost, and with having so little compassion for the poor that he would allow widows and orphans to starve before he would lift a finger to help them, when the fact of the matter is that what he really opposed was centralized arrangements for preaching the gospel such as is seen in the Herald of Truth setup, and benevolent societies that have been built by churches to do the work of the church in benevolence.

One of the names that has found its way into the discussion of present issues is that of “anti.” By some brethren, it is used with the same connotations and with about the same attitude as the name “Campbellite” has been used by sectarians. In years past when religious debates were more common than they are today sectarian preachers seemed to think that if they could shout “Campbellite” loud enough and often enough it would establish the fact that one is saved by faith alone, or that the Christian, once saved, cannot be lost. Today it seems that there are some brethren who think that if they shout “anti” loud enough and often enough they can establish without any scriptural proof that churches have the right to pool their funds in a sponsoring church for the work of evangelism, and that they can build human institutions that are separate and apart from the church to do the church’s benevolent work.

Some months ago the Gospel Advocate carried the life story of a prominent preacher, and one who shares the views of the Advocate with regard to current issues. He also writes quite regularly for that journal. In the course of an interview this preacher was asked

what he considered were the four greatest dangers facing the church today. His reply, in substance, was 1. Modernism and liberalism. 2. Anti-ism. 3. Materialistic and surface religion. 4. The tendency toward factions and divisions in the church, contrary to our Lord’s prayer for unity.

It will be noticed that this preacher stated that one of the great dangers that face the church is modernism. I do not suppose that anyone would be disposed to deny this. But we note that another danger that he said faces the church is something that he calls “anti-ism.” It appears too, that in his estimation of things, this thing called “anti-ism,” whatever it is, is just as evil as modernism, and that to be “anti” is just as bad as being a modernist who rejects the virgin birth of Christ, and the doctrine of the atonement. According to our brother, anti-ism” then is some terrible heresy that threatens the church and which must be destroyed like all false doctrine, and “antis” are terrible people who must be dealt with like false prophets. We suppose that is why when some churches that advertise for a preacher in some of the papers published by brethren state in the advertisement that no “anti” need apply. No doubt, too, this is the reason why, when some preachers advertise in those papers for a position in some church they make it clear that they are not “anti.” And who would want to be an “anti” if “anti-ism” is one of the four greatest dangers facing the church today?

But what is an “Anti?” In its broad sense the word anti means “against” or “opposed to.” So far as the dictionary is concerned it is not used as a complete word, but is used as a prefix, the application of which is limited and qualified by the use of a suffix. To illustrate, we have the word antifreeze. This is a liquid that we add to the water in the radiator of our car that makes it opposed to, or against freezing. We have the word antidote, which means something that is opposed to poisoning and which is given to someone who has swallowed poison to counteract its effects. It will be seen that even here, that which is anti or against one thing can also have a positive function and be for something else. The antifreeze that we use in our car, while opposed to freezing keeps the motor of the car cool and thus acts positively.

In view of the above, it is obvious that when brethren speak of “antis” and “anti-ism” they use the terms loosely, to say the least. Of course we understand that when they speak of some one as being an “anti” they mean that he is against, or opposed to something. But such a loose use of the word does not tell us what he is against or what he opposes. Does he oppose some specific doctrine or practice? If that is the case, then the precise thing that he opposes should be stated so that his position will not be misunderstood or misrepresented. No one has any right to misrepresent even those whom they consider to be in error. We have brethren who are anti-located-preacher. But it would be a misrepresentation to say that they are anti-preacher.

When brethren speak of and write of those whom they call “antis” do they mean that those whom they thus label were born in the objective case and the “kickative” mood and opposed to everything? That is what the term “anti,” without any qualifying suffix would imply. Then by the same token, when a preacher states in his application for a position with some church that he is not “anti,” does he mean that he is not against anything, – that there is nothing that he opposes? And when a church states in its advertisement for a preacher that no anti need apply do they mean that they are looking for a man who is not against anything, – who is not even opposed to sin and false teaching? Certainly it must be obvious that it works both ways and that whatever is comprehended in the term “anti” would have its opposite in the man who says he is not “anti.”

What about these brethren who want it to be known that they are not “anti?” What about these churches who make it so dear that they will not hire any preacher who is an “anti?” Are they not against, or opposed to anything? One thing seems very obvious from their writings and their preaching and that is that they are decidedly “anti-anti-ism.” Yes, they oppose those whom they call antis. So from that standpoint, at least, it is difficult to see how they can escape the stigma of being themselves called “anti.”

But are they not anti other things as well as being `’anti-antis?” Things have reached sad state in the church of the Lord when men cease to oppose things that they know to be wrong. From the standpoint of being opposed to some things, Jesus Christ and the apostles were antis of the deepest dye. Jesus said “Beware of false prophets” (Matt.

7:15). Thus Jesus was anti-false prophets and their false teachings. When brethren and churches today disclaim and decry anti-ism do they mean that they no longer oppose false doctrine7

The church at Corinth had a little problem with anti-ism on its hands. A flagrant case of sin of the worst kind had reared its ugly head in the church. A man was living in adulterous relationship with his father’s wife, –a sin that was not even known among the gentiles. Sadder still was the fact that the church had done nothing about the matter. Paul wrote to them and in scathing tones said, “And ye are puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that had done this deed might be taken away from you” ( 1 Cor. 5:2). Here was a church that was not “anti,” at least not anti-sin. In verses four and five of the same chapter Paul commanded the church to withdraw from that man. In the last verse of the chapter he said, “Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.” Yes, it seems that Paul gave that church some trouble with his being anti-sin, insomuch that we later find that he had made enemies there. So when some preacher disclaims being “anti” or when a church advertises for a preacher who is not anti do they mean that they are not anti-sin? Do they oppose sin any more? Is this the reason that we find so much worldliness in s o m e churches? Is this the reason that it is just not popular to preach against sin in some churches, – they don’t want preachers who are “anti ? “

But we are told that when men speak of anti-ism as being one of the great dangers that face the church today, and when men disclaim being anti they have in mind brethren who oppose certain practices in the brotherhood today. So then these “anti” brethren are not opposed to everything as the label would suggest, but it may turn out that they are “for” many things as well.

These brethren that are called “antis” are “for” colleges operated by Christians where young people may receive their education in a Christian environment, under Christian teachers and where the Bible is taught daily, even though they oppose such colleges being in the budget of churches.

These brethren are “for” the church caring for those who are its responsibility and the individual Christian caring for those who are his or her responsibility, notwithstanding the “anti” label that has been hung on them. Many of these brethren have adopted unfortunate children into their homes. They believe that the local church under the oversight of its elders is fully able to discharge its benevolent responsibilities. For this reason they oppose as unscriptural any benevolent society that stands between the church and its benevolent work, just as they oppose a missionary society that stands between the church and its evangelistic work.

Brethren who have been stigmatized as “antis” are “for” preaching the gospel to the lost. Gospel papers carry the reports of their activities. Each week sees scores of people added to the Lord’s church through the labors of these men. One good brother has recently returned from Nigeria having spent there two years preaching the story of the cross. Hundreds obeyed the gospel as a result of his work. These brethren are “for” the scriptural way of supporting preachers, wherein the money is sent directly by the supporting church to the preacher. For that reason they are opposed to sponsoring church arrangements in which one church assumes the responsibility for a work to which all the other churches are equally related, and in which funds are sent by the contributing churches to the sponsoring church which makes all the decisions relative to that particular work, thus in effect becoming a sort of a missionary society.

What is an “anti?” Obviously he is one who is opposed to something. Who are the “antis?” In the light of the foregoing observations it will be seen that from some standpoint every Christian must admit that he is an “anti” or else admit that he is a failure as a Christian. No Christian can be pleasing unto God if he does not oppose some things.

So in the final analysis it is obvious that “anti-ism” is not the big threat to the church that some would imagine, and churches are engaged in a hopeless quest when they are looking for a man who is not an “anti.” He may be “anti-anti-ism” if nothing else.

Truth Magazine VI: 5, pp. 10-12
February 1962

By Gordon J. Pennock

Among the most forlorn words ever written are these from the pen of the beloved John: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us” (1 John 2:19). With these words he recorded the apostasy of some of his brethren. To say that he tearfully wrote these lines would require very little imagination.

Surely, the hearts of all sincere Christians are saddened when any brother makes “shipwreck of the faith.” And, although departures from “the faith” have taken place from time to time ever since the beginning of the church, such have not become any easier to accept. And so, with sadness, we feel it necessary to report that brother Roy Key identified himself with the “Christian Church” several months ago. While this news was relayed to us some time ago, it was not until recently that it was confirmed by one whom we considered to be in position to be certain of the facts. We are informed that Roy is now preaching for a “Christian Church” in the Des Moines, Iowa, area, and studying at Drake University.

Brother Key’s change will not be surprising to many brethren, especially in the Chicago area. In fact, it has been anticipated, despite his avowals that he would not do so. Those familiar with the peculiar views held by him were firmly convinced that unless he could be led to see the error in them and abandon them, he could not remain indefinitely with the church. This turn of events indicates the correctness of their judgment. It will be a matter of embarrassment to some who sought either to defend Roy, or to criticize those who criticized him. It is good that the final judgment of such matters rests in the hands of God. Who knows but what Roy’s defection could have been averted if only some had spoken who failed to speak?

Some of Roy’s views have been matters of controversy for a number of years, especially since he wrote and published a booklet in about 1954 entitled THE LAW OF CHRIST. Several brethren reviewed this book in their preaching and writing. Brother G. C. Brewer wrote a review, which was carried in a series of articles in the Gospel Advocate in 1955, the reading of which we would commend to the reader who has access to them. Likewise, two articles by brother Key, with scriptures and reviews by this scribe, may also be found in Volume I of Truth Magazine, which we believe would be enlightening.

I think that we can fairly state that brother Key’s positions were not clearly expressed by him and therefore not easily understood. His statements were ambiguous, inconsistent and sometimes contradictory. He seemed upon the one hand to want to hold fast to the teaching of the New Testament on the plan of salvation (although he objected to that term), and at the same time liberalize it so as to include the multitudes who pay lip service to Jesus, but who have failed, either ignorantly or willingly, to obey the gospel. He seemed to say that baptism was important, yet not important; that it was essential, yet not essential. He stressed it upon the one hand and minimized it upon the other. He seemed to conclude that although Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16), he that believeth and is not baptized may also be saved. In a personal discussion with the writer he once posed this question: If a man receives sprinkling, with the same faith, intent and purpose with which another is immersed, how do we know that God does not accept his sprinkling as baptism, thus granting to him the same contingent blessings and relationship? He contended that the earnestness of a man’s heart might offset any failure to comply with the expressed conditions of salvation, and that we should not preach to the contrary.

Brother Brewer, in his review, appraised Roy’s position in these words: “He particularly thinks that we should not let baptism be the one hazard which we cannot overcome in seeking fellowship with the religious world. He evidently has the virus of ‘Ecumenicity.’ … Some people, who are not good enough to submit to the will of the Lord, are just too good to be lost and, therefore, we will have to remove the will of the Lord so that they can be saved” (Gospel Advocate, Vol. 97, p. 206).

In our view, Roy has become a victim of teachers and teaching which preceded him. He expressed to us, personally, keen admiration for Ralph Wilburn who once preached in Chicago, but who long since departed and joined himself to the “Christian Church.” He defended James Warren, another Chicago preacher, who bitterly indicted faithful gospel preachers with his book, The Heresy of Legalism. Roy’s only criticism of these men was for their leaving the church of Christ. He was closely associated with, and considered a leader by, such men as J. P. Sanders, Bill Baker, Don Anderson, Don Horn, Henry Walderon, Don Osborne, Robert Box, Ferrel Walters, and perhaps others, who one by one have either gone to denominationalism or terminated activity with any religious group. (That any of these have been converted from the error of their ways, has never come to our attention.) That Roy would inevitably follow in their steps was vehemently denied by him from time to time. But error, with time, has taken its toll.

What happened to the faith of brother Key is really known by God alone. We can only surmise and speculate. Brother Brewer, in his review of Roy and others, was strongly of the opinion that their troubles stemmed from their studies in infidel schools in the process of acquiring academic degrees. It is well known that several of the men who defected, studied at Chicago University during their stay in that city. Here might be a good time to insert a quotation from the venerable Adlai S. Croom, who once studied in such schools as Harvard and Chicago Universities, and who served Harding College for many years, in various capacities, especially as President and director. Now, nearing the four-score milepost, he recently issued this warning:

“Deviations from the straight course laid out in God’s word into the byways of men’s philosophies as preparation to preach, is to ignore Paul’s warning: ‘Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit.”…

“It might be well for brethren everywhere to mark those who have sought preparation to preach in such infidel hotbeds as Harvard Divinity School as well as the one in Chicago University, as those who have been exposed to a dangerous contagion. This might dampen the enthusiasm of those who seek distinction through a degree from these high rated schools. Whoever advises a young preacher to enter such an institution is flirting with a millstone for a necktie. ‘Evil companionships corrupt good morals’ was not limited to those whom some like to call immature. It is true of old and young, educated and uneducated.” (Gospel Light, November, 1961.)

That brother Key, and others whom we have mentioned, will one day return to “the faith once for all delivered” is devoutly desired. But we have no basis for optimism. We are impressed by their experiences that many pitfalls beset the paths of Christians, even gospel preachers, of which we need to be aware. “It is so easy to be caught in the web spun by the wisdom of men,” and be “committed to the service of Satan.”

Truth Magazine VI: 5, pp. 2-3
February 1962

By Billy Boyd

You cannot buy your way to heaven with money, but you can pave your way to hell with it. The misuse and abuse of money and material blessings is one of the greatest assurances of eternal condemnation. The teachings of Christ have more to say about money and the material things for which it is used than any other one subject. The reason that the Bible says so much about this subject is quite simple.

“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (I Tim. 6:10.)

In order to make the right use of his material possessions the Christian should give careful attention to what the Bible teaches on this matter. Here are ten guides to giving, which are set forth in the word of God and which should govern each of us both in what we give and in what we retain.

 

Our Giving Should Be Governed By These Ten Guides

 

1. Every material blessing which we have comes from God.

Scriptures: “The earth is Jehovah’s, and the fullness thereof; The world and they that dwell therein” (Ps. 24:1). “For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle of a thousand hills” (Ps. 50:10). “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights . . .” (Jas. 1:17)

Application: Since everything we have comes from God, we are simply stewards of that which God has committed into our care. As stewards, we must strive to handle aright that which in reality belongs to God. “Here, moreover, it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful” (I Cor. 4:2). Jesus teaches us that we must one day give an account of our stewardship, and he says: “If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon (money), who will commit to your trust the true riches” (Luke 16:2, 11).

2. We, as Christians, belong entirely to God.

Scriptures: “Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; for ye were bought with a price: Glorify God therefore in your body” (I Cor. 6:19, 20). “For none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s” (Rom, 14:7, 8).

Application: Since we belong entirely to God, our lives, everything we are and everything we have, should be dedicated to his service. Everything we do will be done to the glory of God. “And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Col. 3:17). With this concept, all that we have will be given to the service of God in one-way or another. What we retain for our own personal use will not be retained for selfish purposes, but to enable us to more effectively serve God with our lives. Our first consideration at all times will be: “How can I best use my material blessings to advance the cause of Christ.” Surely this concept will cause us to be much more liberal in what we lay in store on the Lord’s day.

3. We can rob God of what is rightfully his by the way we use our money.

Scriptures: “Will a man rob God? yet ye rob me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with the curse; for ye rob me, even this whole nation” (Malachi 3:8, 9). “There was a certain rich man, who had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he was wasting his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, What is that that I hear of thee? Render the account of thy stewardship; for thou canst be no longer steward” (Luke 16:1, 2).

Application: In Romans 2:22 Paul asked “Thou that abhorrest idols, cost thou rob temples? ” Even among men, robbery is a very serious crime and punishable by imprisonment. How much more serious when the robbery is committed against God! Yet, when we use for personal pleasure, that which should have been used to the glory of God, we are guilty of robbing Him.

4. We must plan and purpose our giving if it is to be acceptable.

Scriptures: “Let each man do according as he hath purposed in his heart . . .” (II Cor. 9:7a). “…make up beforehand your afore-promised bounty, that the same might be ready as a matter of bounty, arid not of extortion” (II Cor. 9:5b). “…. for this is expedient for you who were the first to make a beginning a year ago, not only to do, but also to will” (II Cor. 8:10b).

Application: To purpose means to choose beforehand. God expects us to study and plan our giving so that it will not be a matter of extortion. The Christians at Corinth were commended because they had promised their bounty a year in advance. The person who does not spend some time and thought in planning his giving cannot give so as to please God.

5. Our giving is measured by God by the degree of sacrifice we make.

Scriptures: “And he sat down over against the treasury and beheld how the multitude cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto him his disciples and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, This poor widow cast in more than all they that are casting into the treasury: for they all did cast in of their superfluity; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living” (Mark 12:41-44). “How that in much proof of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality” (II Cor. 8:2). But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased” (Heb. 13: 16).

Application: Our giving is measured, not so much by the amount we give, as by the amount we have left after we give. Jesus commended the poor widow, not because she gave little but because she gave all that she had to give. She retained nothing. The contrast between the widow and the rich who cast in of their superfluity was in the amount, which was retained for self. The rich cast in much but they kept much more. The widow cast in little but she kept nothing. Unless our giving represents a personal sacrifice, it amounts to little in the sight of God.

6. Our giving must be according to our prosperity.

Scriptures: “Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come” (I Cor. 16:2). “For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according as a man hash, not according as he hath not” (II Cor. 8:12).

Application: To prosper means to be well provided for the journey of life. The degree to which one has been provided for life’s journey determines the extent to which he should lay by in store. This, of course, would include a person’s total income from all sources. If a person has two jobs, then his giving should be based on the income from both jobs, not just one. If two members of a family work, the family’s prosperity is the combined income from both sources. If they give as they have prospered, they base their giving on the total income from both sources. If a man works overtime, his prosperity is increased by the amount he receives above his regular wages. Unless his giving is based upon his total pay, he is not giving as he has prospered. It is at this point that many people are actually robbing God.

7. Our giving should be with liberality.

Scriptures: “…he that giveth, let him do it with liberality…” (Rom. 12:8b). “But this I say, He that soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he that soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully” (II Cor. 9:6). “And he that supplieth seed to the sower and bread for food, shall supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the fruits of your righteousness: ye being enriched in everything unto all liberality, which worketh through us thanksgiving to God” (II Cor. 9: 10, 11).

Application: There is no place in our giving to the Lord for stinginess and penny-pinching. There are some who have misapplied the fact that the New Testament does not teach tithing, and they have wrongly concluded that they can give anything they want to. While the New Testament does not teach tithing as such, it does teach giving with liberality. It is doubtful if many of us can give liberally while giving less than a tenth. Jesus told his disciples, “freely ye received, freely give” (Matt. 10:8). This should be true of us in our material blessings.

8. Our giving should be done with cheerfulness.

Scriptures: “Let each man do according as he hath purposed in his heart: not grudgingly or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (II Cor. 9:7). “How that in much proof of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality” (II Cor. 8:2).

Application: Someone has said, “The gift without the giver is bare.” This is true. The attitude of the one giving is of equal importance with what he gives. Paul said the Christians of Macedonia besought with much entreaty to be allowed to give (II Cor. 8:4). We need a resurrection of such cheerfulness.

9. Our giving should be for the purpose of laying up a good foundation against the time to come.

Scriptures: “Charge them that are rich in this present world, that they be not high-minded, nor have their hope set on the uncertainty of riches, but on God who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, that they be ready to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on the life which is life indeed” (I Tim. 6:17-19). “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust cloth consume, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: for where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also” (Matt. 6:19-21).

Application: “Use your money while you’re living, do not hoard it to be proud. You can never take it with you, there’s no pocket in a shroud.” There is only one way to benefit eternally from our temporal blessings. Use them in the service of God and for the advancement of His cause.

10. Our giving, when directed by God’s word, will bring rich returns into our lives.

Scriptures: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). “For the ministration of this service not only filleth up the measure of the wants of the saints, but aboundeth also through many thanksgivings unto God; seeing that through the proving of you by this ministration they glorify God for the obedience of your confession unto the gospel of Christ, and for the liberality of your contribution unto them and unto all” (II Cor. 9:12,13.)

Application: We have not been truly and completely blessed until we have known the joys of giving. God has promised to richly bless those who live lives of service and sacrifice. Through the prophet Malachi he challenged his people with these words: “Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in my house, and prove me now herewith, saith Jehovah of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there will not be room to receive it.” We will never know the fullness of giving until we accept this challenge from our God.

Conclusion: Here then are the principles of giving which are set forth in the word of God. What will we do with them? They are of little value on this paper, but they can be of immense worth both to you and to the church of our Lord if each of us will govern our giving by God’s guides.

Truth Magazine VI: 5, pp. 4-6
February, 1962

By Melvin Curry

This is the final article in this series. It is our prayer that the brief summary of material found herein will be useful to those who are called upon to oppose the errors of the United Pentecostal Church.

Jesus Is More Than Flesh

In addition, brother Belue completely destroyed Mr. Childress’ contention that Jesus was merely “a human bodily form.” He asked his opponent three questions: (1) Is a being with the ability to pray composed of flesh only or of flesh and spirit? (2) Is the body without the spirit dead? (3) Can a dead body pray?

Mr. Childress gave no significant answer to the first question. Perhaps he sensed the dilemma. But he could not avoid the last two. He agreed that the body without the spirit is dead, and that a dead body cannot pray.

In proof of the fact that the body without the spirit is dead, he quoted the words of Jesus on the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mt. 27:46). According to Mr. Childress, when the Father forsook Jesus, the Spirit of God departed from the dead body suspended on the cross.

This was all brother Belue needed. Matthew 27:46 teaches that the Father had already forsaken Jesus at the time He spoke those words. The Eternal Spirit had already departed from the Lord. He was left alone. But He wasn’t dead yet! Why? Because He had a spirit of His own. After lamenting His abandonment by the Father, Jesus “cried again with a loud voice” (v. 50), “and yielded up the ghost.” Luke records what Jesus cried, “Father into thy hands I commend my spirit” (23:46). Certainly this wasn’t a dead body praying to the Father! Yet, the Father had already forsaken Jesus. The truth is that Jesus possessed a personal spirit in addition to a “human bodily form.” This spirit was still within Him and He commended it to the Father. Jesus was more than flesh.

Another passage which teaches that Jesus is more than flesh is Hebrews 10:5. Mr.

Childress had more difficulty with the argument based on this verse of Scripture than he did with any other argument on the entire Godhead question. Mr. Welch offered him no help; neither could any of the Pentecostal people engaged in friendly discussions offer any refutation of the argument. Its effectiveness was felt by all. Jesus said to the Father, “A body hast thou prepared me.” This was diagramed as follows:

Whose Body Was It?

Mr. Childress contended that Jesus was the “bodily form” of God. But if Jesus is the “body,” who is the Me? It is an utter impossibility to make one person out of the Thou, the body, and the Me. Mr. Childress, desperate for an answer, perverted the passage making it read, “I prepared a body for myself.” Brother Belue demonstrated the absurdity of such sophistry. James teaches, “the body without the spirit is dead” (James 2.26). Since Jesus is the “bodily form,” and since the body is distinguished from the spirit (Me) in Hebrews 10:5, then Mr. Childress was forced into the position of believing in a dead God. This is the logical consequence of attempting to prove that there is only one person in the Godhead.

Conclusion

This was a splendid discussion in every way. Both men behaved themselves in a spirit conducive to honorable controversy, and the interest gained momentum from night to night. Much good has come as a result of the debate. Truth has nothing to lose and everything to gain in an open and honest public discussion.

Truth Magazine VI: 5, p. 13
February 1962